DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES -- THE PROMISE OF DENTAL IMPLANTS

Patient-reported outcomes of zirconia dental implants: a systematic review and future directions

PURPOSE

Zirconia dental implants show excellent biocompatibility and tissue integration, low affinity for plaque, and favorable biomechanical properties. However, these objective measures do not adequately replicate the patient's perception. This systematic review evaluated the evidence on patient-reported outcome (PROs) in zirconia dental implant treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines, utilizing six electronic databases, and supplemented by a manual search of relevant journals and websites to ensure a thorough and comprehensive screening process. The identified studies were subjected to preidentified inclusion criteria. Only controlled clinical trials published in English were considered without limitations on the year of publication. Data on the study characteristics (follow-up, survival rate (%), implant system, number of implants, and type of treatment), PROMs, level of evidence, and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) Bias Score were extracted.

RESULTS

The initial database and hand search yielded 596 articles; 189 were included in the title and abstract screening after excluding the duplicates. Eighteen articles were selected based on the inclusion criteria, among which six were excluded because they did not match the research question. Thus, the final selection comprised 12 articles. Most PROMs (aesthetics, speaking, comfort, chewing ability, and general satisfaction) at prosthetic delivery revealed significantly improved average scores than those at pretreatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the respective limitations of the articles included in this systematic review, patients revealed high satisfaction levels with regard to zirconia dental implants. A high level of heterogeneity was observed among the instruments used for measuring the patient-reported outcomes in patients with zirconia implants, thus highlighting the need to develop specific PROMs in the future.

Can narrow-diameter implants enhance patient-reported outcomes for mandibular implant-retained overdentures?

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare stability and functionality between narrow and standard implant-retained mandibular overdentures in edentulous patients from multiple perspectives. Assessments included clinical parameters [survival rate (SR) and marginal bone loss (MBL)], along with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL).

METHODS

The study protocol followed PRISMA criteria for reporting reviews and meta-analyses. Using appropriate keywords, electronic search was conducted in each of the following databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus, up to July 22, 2022. There were no restrictions based on language, publication type, or publication date. Additionally, ongoing studies were explored in ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, while cross-references in each selected study were manually examined. The eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing narrow implants (diameter ≤ 3.5 mm) to standard implants (diameter > 3.5-4.5 mm) retaining mandibular overdentures in edentulous patients. Excluded were studies with unclear implant diameter information, fewer than 5 patients per group, observational studies, reviews, and laboratory studies. Two authors independently conducted study selection, data collection, and analysis, resolving any discrepancies through discussion with a third author. Methodological quality was assessed using RoB-2 and ROBINS-I tools. Implant SR and MBL measurements at final follow-up were recorded, while patient satisfaction and OHRQoL were evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS-100) and oral health impact profile (OHIP) questionnaire, respectively.

RESULTS

After duplicate removal, 782 publications and 83 registered clinical trials were identified, of which 26 were eligible for full-text assessment. Ultimately, the quantitative evaluation included 12 publications from 8 independent studies: 4 parallel design RCTs and 4 CCTs. Risk of bias assessment revealed variations among the studies, with only one study being rated as having low risk. The follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 3 years. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in SR and MBL between narrow and standard implant groups (p = 0.29 and p = 0.93, respectively), with considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 100% and I2 = 78%, respectively). Regarding PROMs, the narrow implant group showed significantly higher levels of patient satisfaction (mean difference (MD): 8.18; 95% CI: 5.83 to 10.53; p < 0.00001; I2 = 36%) and exhibited a significant improvement in OHRQoL (MD: -4.36; 95% CI: -6.83 to -1.89; p < 0.001; I2 = 55%) compared to the standard implant group.

CONCLUSION

For implant-retained mandibular overdentures, the use of narrow implants is associated with comparable SR and MBL, along with higher patient satisfaction and better OHRQoL improvement as compared to standard implants, offering a viable alternative option for patients with diminished alveolar bone width.

A retrospective cohort study on 3D printed temporary crowns

In this retrospective cohort study the survival rate, clinical parameters, patient satisfaction with aesthetics and oral health-related quality of life of 3D printed temporary crowns were evaluated. Temporary crowns were 3D printed with a Form3B out of Permanent Crown Resin (Formlabs GmbH). Anonymized data for the restorations' survival (in-situ) was evaluated retrospectively for 98 temporary crowns of 63 patients fabricated within 19 months. Among these restorations, further analysis was conducted for 42 temporary crowns of 24 patients regarding clinical parameters (modified USPHS criteria), patient satisfaction with aesthetics and impact on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) (OHIP 14). Descriptive statistical analysis (significance level of α = 0.05) included a Kaplan-Meier curve for survival analysis, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for USPHS, aesthetics and OHIP data, followed by a Wilcoxon test for USPHS and OHIP data and Chi-squared test for aesthetics data. Cronbach's alpha was calculated for OHIP data. The average observation period for survival analysis was 256 days. The survival rate was satisfactory at 98% and n = 2 catastrophic failures (i.e. fracture) occurred. Total OHIP scores, with good reliabilities, improved from 6.63 to 2.21 significantly (p = 0.005) and patient satisfaction with aesthetics (p < 0.001) as well. Clinical analysis with modified USPHS criteria revealed encouraging results.

Evaluation of the accuracy of fully guided implant placement by undergraduate students and postgraduate dentists: a comparative prospective clinical study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the accuracy of implant placement through three-dimensional planning and fully guided insertion, comparing outcomes between undergraduate and postgraduate surgeons.

METHODS

Thirty-eight patients requiring 42 implants in posterior single-tooth gaps were enrolled from the University Clinic for Prosthodontics at the Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg and the Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry, and Craniomandibular Disorders of Charité University Medicine, Berlin. Twenty-two implants were placed by undergraduate students (n = 18), while 20 implants were placed by trainee postgraduate dentists (n = 5). Pre-operative intraoral scans and cone beam computed tomography images were performed for implant planning and surgical template fabrication. Postoperative intraoral scans were superimposed onto the original scans to analyze implant accuracy in terms of apical, coronal, and angular deviations, as well as vertical discrepancies.

RESULTS

In the student group, two implant insertions were performed by the assistant dentist because of intraoperative complications and, thus, were excluded from further analysis. For the remaining implants, no statistically significant differences were observed between the dentist and student groups in terms of apical (p = 0.245), coronal (p = 0.745), or angular (p = 0.185) implant deviations, as well as vertical discrepancies (p = 0.433).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the viability of fully guided implant placement by undergraduate students, with comparable accuracy to postgraduate dentists. Integration into dental education can prepare students for implant procedures, expanding access and potentially reducing costs in clinical practice. Collaboration is essential for safe implementation, and future research should explore long-term outcomes and patient perspectives, contributing to the advancement of dental education and practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS, DRKS00023024, Registered 8 September 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00023024 .

DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES UPDATE 2023

The emergence and rapid development of disruptive innovations are quickly turning our profession into personalized dentistry, built upon evidence-based, data-oriented, and patient-centered research. In order to help improve the quality and quantity of patient-centered evidence in dentistry, further promote the wide and standard use of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) and dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs), the Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice has put together this special issue, the third of a series entitled Dental Patient-Reported Outcomes Update. A total of 7 solicited articles are collected in this issue. To put them into a broader perspective, this review provides a concise summary of key, selected PRO and dPRO articles published during 2023. A brief introduction to those articles included in this Special Issue follows. Four main domains are covered in this Special Issue: (1) dPROs and digital dentistry, (2) standardization of dPRO-related methodology, (3) current usage of dPROs and dPROMs in published research, and (iv) the significance and relevance of dPRO usage.

IMPACT OF LOADING PROTOCOL OF 2-IMPLANT BAR-RETAINED MANDIBULAR OVERDENTURES ON ORAL HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

OBJECTIVES

Aim was to assess whether immediate loading (IL) is more effective than delayed loading (DL) for 2-implant bar-retained mandibular overdentures in terms of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) improvement over a period of 24-month.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, 32 edentulous patients (mean age: 65.7 ± 10.6 years, 50.0% female) were included. Potential participants had to be unsatisfied with the retention of their current mandibular complete denture and demanded implant treatment for inclusion in the study. OHRQoL was assessed with the 49-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) at baseline before treatment and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after implant loading and insertion of implant-retained bars for overdenture support. A mixed-effects model with patients as random effect and an unstructured covariance matrix was developed to address repeated outcome measurement.

RESULTS

Patients' OHRQoL impairment at baseline was substantial indicated by mean OHIP summary score of 45.1 points. OHIP summary scores decreased substantially from baseline to 1-month follow-up to a mean of 33.5 points (P = .020). OHRQoL further improved during study period indicated by OHIP summary score of 25.7 points at 24-month follow-up. Raw treatment effects (IL vs. DL) ranged from -1.2 OHIP points for 12-month follow-up to 5.8 OHIP points for 24-month follow-up. Assuming constant treatment and time effects, treatment effect was small and not statistically significant (-0.7 OHIP points; P= .918).

CONCLUSION

A 2-implant bar-retained mandibular overdentures substantially improves OHRQoL over a period of at least 24 months. There seems to be no significant effect of implant loading protocol.

How do implant patients experience complications? A cross-sectional multicentre pilot study

BACKGROUND

This cross-sectional study aimed to quantify the impact of implant-related complications on perceived pain, functional impairment, concern, quality of life (QoL) and confidence which were the study's primary outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were recruited in five centres over 19 months. They completed a structured ad hoc questionnaire scoring pain, chewing ability, concern, QoL and confidence in future implant treatment. Some potential independent variables were also recorded. The data were analysed descriptively and with a multiple-stepwise regression model for correlations of the five primary variables with the other data.

RESULTS

The sample consisted of 408 patients, with prosthesis mobility being the most common complication (40.7%). Most patients (79.2%) consulted because of a complication, while 20.8% were asymptomatic and consulted regularly. Pain was correlated with symptoms at consultation and in biological/mixed complications (p < .001; R2  = 44.8%). Chewing impairment with implant loss, prosthesis fracture and removable implant-supported or total prostheses (p < .001; R2  = 42.8%); patient concern was correlated with the clinical symptoms and removable implant-supported prostheses (p < .001; R2  = 36.1%); impact on QoL was correlated with implant loss, prosthesis fracture and removable implant-supported prostheses (p < .001; R2  = 41.1%). Patient confidence was relatively independent and only impact on quality of life significantly influenced it (r = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant-related complications moderately impaired patients' perceptions of pain, chewing ability, concern and QoL. Nevertheless, complications only slightly reduced their confidence in future implant treatment.

Treatment effect of implant-supported fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the effect of implant treatment in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) or implant overdentures (IODs) on dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In January 2022, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened for prospective clinical studies on completely edentulous patients treated with IFCDs and/or IODs, reporting pre-treatment and follow-up dPROs. Hedges' g effect sizes (ES) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Afterward, meta-analyses were conducted using random effect models.

RESULTS

A total number of 1608 records was initially identified. Of those, 28 studies reporting dPROs from 1457 patients were finally included. The applied dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) included several versions of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) or specific items assessing satisfaction with Visual Analogue Scales (VAS). The overall ES was large for rehabilitation with IFCDs (1.68 [CI: 1.15, 2.20]) and IODs (1.26 [CI: 0.99, 1.52]) with no significant difference (p = .165) between the two. Denture stability was the only factor rated significantly higher for IFCDs (ES difference: 2.37 [CI: 0.21, 4.54]; p = .032). Subgroup analyses revealed moderately higher ES for IODs on two implants relative to one implant (ES difference: 0.73 [CI: 0.34, 1.12]; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a strong positive effect of implant treatment in edentulous patients, independent of the type of prosthetic rehabilitation. In patients seeking high stability, IFCDs may be preferable. In mandibular IODs on a single implant, there was a significantly positive effect of an additional implant on dPROs.

Patient-reported measures outcomes: modern evaluation of oral health

Patient reported outcomes have become important, with instruments (patient reported outcomes measures - PROMs) being used to assess treatment success and patient satisfaction. In this editorial, the dental PROM context is presented, and submissions are invited for a special collection from BMC Oral Health entitled 'Patient-reported outcomes in dentistry'.

Comparative evaluation of biological, mechanical, and patient-reported outcomes of angulated screw channel abutments versus multi-unit abutment-retained single-unit implant restorations in the anterior esthetic zone: An-in vivo study

Aims

The study aimed to evaluate biological, mechanical, and patient reported parameters associated with ASC abutments and MU abutments for the fabrication of screw retained implant crowns in the anterior esthetic zone.

Setting and Design

For the study, 20 patients were selected and implants were placed within the constraints of prosthetic envelope. Later, the screw retained crown was fabricated.

Materials and Methods

Biological parameters (including implant survival rate, marginal bone levels using cone beam computed tomography, and soft tissue assessment using periodontal indices) were measured at the time of crown placement and 1 year follow up. Mechanical parameter (screw loosening) was calculated using removal torque loss (RTL) values obtained at the time of crown placement and 1 year follow up. Patient reported parameters were evaluated using a questionnaire at 1 year follow up.

Statistical Analysis Used

All data were tabulated, statistically analyzed, and compared using SPSS version 23 IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA.

Results

Implant survival was found 100% in both the groups. The marginal bone level reduced considerably in both the groups from baseline to 1 year follow up. The MU abutment group had slightly less marginal bone loss than the ASC abutment group. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups' periodontal indices at baseline and 1-year follow-up values. At baseline, the RTL value was substantially lower (P <0.003) in the ASC abutment group than in the MU abutment group, however at the 1-year follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in RTL or screw loosening between the two groups. Patient-reported data showed no statistically significant difference.

Conclusion

Within the constraints of this study, it was suggested that both ASC and MU abutments provide equally promising results in terms of biological, mechanical, and patient-reported parameters in the anterior esthetic region for single screw-retained crowns.

Cross-cultural adaptations of the oral health impact profile - An assessment of global availability of 4-dimensional oral health impact characterization

OBJECTIVE

The 4-dimensional (4D) structure of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), comprising of the dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact, is clinically plausible and psychometrically solid. The original Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) instrument and its short-form versions have been proven to lend themselves well to the assessment of these 4 OHRQoL dimensions. However, whether this 4-dimensional approach to oral health impact characterization can be performed on a global scale, that is, for most of the world's population, is not known. The purpose of this study was perform a systematic review to identify all cross-cultural adaptations of OHIP versions with 49, 20/19, 14, and 5 items. The global availability of 4D oral health impact characterization was investigated.

METHODS

We performed searches of electronic databases- Scopus, Pubmed, Web of Science, along with hand searching in June 2022 to identify all cross-cultural language adaptations of the different OHIP versions available in the literature. Whether the 4D oral health impact assessment can be considered a global approach was judged based on the criteria whether 4D psychometric information was available for at least 75% of the most widely spoken languages with an OHIP version.

RESULTS

We identified 82 studies with a total of 90 individual OHIP language versions for 45 languages. Among the top 20 languages with most first-language (native) speakers, 16 (80%) had OHIP versions. Among the top 20 languages with the most first- and second-language speakers, also 16 (80%) had OHIP versions. Of these 16 OHIP versions, across both language categories, 13 versions (81%) allowed for 4D oral health impact characterization.

CONCLUSION

Four-dimensional oral health impact assessment using the dimensions Oral Function, Orofacial Pain, Orofacial Appearance, and Psychosocial Impact can be considered a globally available approach given that OHIP versions with 4D information are readily available for most widely spoken languages. Thus, psychometrically sound, practical, and internationally comparable oral health impact characterization can be easily performed to study population oral health and determine oral disease impact and treatment efficacy for dental patients.

MEASURING PATIENT EXPERIENCE OF ORAL HEALTH CARE: A CALL TO ACTION

BACKGROUND

Surveys to measure patients' experiences of health care are common practice in general medical care to improve patient centered care. However, such questionnaires are not consistently used to capture the patient's experience of oral health care. Because patient experience is an important component of oral health care, there is an urgent need to measure it in the oral health care setting.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to illustrate the need for patient experience measurement in oral health care, highlight the challenges such measurement in this setting faces, and provide a set of next steps to advance care experience measurement for dental patients.

BASIC PROCEDURES

We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature examining patient experience measurement in medical and oral health care. This focused on studies aimed at understanding the current measurement landscape and existing measurement tools. We also gathered additional information and perspectives through discussions with key informants and stakeholders.

MAIN FINDINGS

There is a critical need for patient experience measurement in oral health care. To develop a program to measure patient experiences of oral care, the following should be done: (1) convene stakeholders and get their buy-in; (2) develop a patient experiences of oral health conceptual framework; (3) develop a survey tool that captures key aspects of patient experiences of oral health; (4) pilot the survey tool; (5) assess the survey tool...s psychometric properties; and (6) refine and finalize the survey tool.

PRINCIPLE CONCLUSIONS

To advance the measurement of the quality of oral health care, we outline a stepwise methodology that captures dental patient experiences of oral health care.

A Bibliometric Mapping Study of the Literature on Oral Health-related Quality of Life

BACKGROUND

Oral health is an indispensable component of overall health, and oral health status significantly influences people's physical, mental, and social well-being. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), an important and widely used dental patient-reported outcome (dPRO), is attracting more and more researchers' attention and interest. This study aimed to analyze and map the existing scientific literature regarding OHRQoL through a bibliometric approach, including a summary of the characteristics of OHRQoL-related publications, the identification of prolific entities, high-frequency keywords analysis, and research trend analysis via periodic high-impact keywords.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection to collect OHRQoL-related original research and review articles. After examination and deduplication, the following bibliometric information was extracted from each article: title, abstract, keywords, authors, affiliations, geographic origin (countries/regions), year of publication, journal name, and references. Various scientometric mapping tools including Microsoft Office spreadsheet, VOSviewer, Biblioshiny R-package software, and Scimago Graphica were used to analyze basic bibliometric parameters, leading producers, high-impact keywords, and research trends.

RESULTS

A total of 3324 OHRQoL-related articles (3119 original research articles and 205 review papers) were collected, which received 65,704 citations. A total of 9950 authors from 2429 organizations contributed to this body of research. Prolific authors from Europe, USA, Brazil, New Zealand, China, and Canada were identified, and they also centered collaboration clusters in the co-author network. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology was the most prolific journal. Twenty-one keywords with more than 200 occurrences, and 23 keywords with more than 150 occurrences, were identified for publications of 1994-2021 and 2012-2021, respectively. Keyword analysis revealed hot topics such as instrument development and validation, studies targeting children and adolescents, as well as clinical studies in operative dentistry, implantology, orthodontics, and community dentistry. Oral Health Impact Profile is the most commonly used instrument in OHRQoL-related research.

CONCLUSIONS

OHRQoL is an impactful topic in dental health care as it is not only useful in dental research and patient-centered clinical outcome measures but also provides valuable guidance in dental public health administration and policy making. OHRQoL-related research presents a dynamic landscape and is expected to continue presenting high productivity and broad application in the future.

The Potential Role of Dental Patient-Reported Outcomes (dPROs) in Evidence-Based Prosthodontics and Clinical Care: A Narrative Review

Oral health problems are associated with poor quality of life, with the potential to cause functional, aesthetic, nutritional, and psychological difficulties, in addition to pain and suffering. Traditionally, dental treatment outcomes are measured using purely clinical parameters; however, this may be ineffective as these parameters cannot adequately capture the full impact of poor oral health on the patient, or their respective coping strategies. From this perspective, there are significant benefits when the patient's perception of their care is considered, and included in treatment planning and delivery. The impacts perceived by the patient on their treatment outcomes can be measured using patient-reported outcomes (PROS), or more specifically with dPROS, focused on dental patient-reported outcomes. Although there are some instruments available for measuring these outcomes in clinical trials, very little information is available for explaining the context in which these outcomes are considered, and also how to capture this information using appropriate instruments, specially in evidence-based dental practice. This article aims to review the literature, seeking to describe what has been considered about assessing patient's outcomes, as well as how to measure them, and explore the potential benefits of using dPROS in evidence-based prosthodontics and clinical care of partially and fully edentulous patients.